544 East 1200 South, Heber City, UT 84032 · Wasatch County · (435) 654-5500
92 certified beds, about 65 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1998
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 465147 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 4, 2026, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Utah average is 8.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 26 health citations since January 2022, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $49,084 in the last three years; the largest was $32,029, and the latest is dated June 4, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.63 hours per resident per day, against 4.09 across Utah and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.31 of those hours.
69.9% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Utah average 50.7%).
CMS links it to Rocky Mountain Care, an affiliated group of 10 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 26 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's choices. Specifically, for 4 of 36 sampled residents, a resident's skin condition was not evaluated and treated, a resident had wound care provided without orders, a resident was hospitalized and no documentation was found of the resident's change in condition, and a resident expired at the facility and no documentation could be found of the resident's change in condition. Resident identifiers: 9, 59, 61, and 62.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, for 2 of 36 sampled residents, the facility did not provide each resident assisted nutrition to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status. In addition, a resident was not offered a therapeutic diet when there was a nutritional problem. Specifically, a resident who was provided a tube feeding lost a significant amount of weight when the tube feeding was discontinued for 5 days and her oral intake was not meeting her nutritional needs. This example will be cited as a harm. In addition, a resident with a high potassium was not provided low potassium foods when the dialysis center ordered it. Resident identifiers: 6 and 13.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined that the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, the dishmachine temperatures were below the required manufacture temperatures for sanitizing dishes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, for 3 of 36 sampled residents, the facility did not provide routine and emergency drugs and biologicals to its residents. Specifically, a resident's multiple sclerosis medication was not available for administration, another resident's Clonidine, Hydralazine, and Ferrous Fumarate were documented as not available for administration, and a third resident's potassium chloride, topiramate, Myrbetriq, and duloxetine were documented as not available for administration. Resident identifiers: 6, 29, and 39.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, for 1 of 36 sampled residents, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse and neglect were reported to the State Survey Agency (SSA). Specifically, the facility waited 5 days to report an allegation of abuse or neglect to the SSA, after a resident sustained a fall which resulted in a fracture. Resident identifier: 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, for 1 of 36 sampled residents, the facility did not provide appropriate treatments and services to maintain or improve his or her ability to carry out the activities of daily living, which included hygiene and bathing. Specifically, a resident was not provided showers and was observed to have a body odor. Resident identifier: 57.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, for 1 of 36 sampled residents, the facility did not ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. Specifically, a resident with decreased sensation in her feet utilized hot packs heated in the microwave and staff were not able to determine the temperature prior to application. Resident identifier: 29.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined that the facility did not ensure that residents who required dialysis received such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences. Specifically, for 1 out of 36 sampled residents, the facility did not conduct a post dialysis assessment after each dialysis session. Resident identifier: 6.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that the resident's drug regimen was free from any unnecessary drugs. An unnecessary drug was any drug used in excessive dose; for excessive duration; without adequate monitoring; without adequate indications for use; in the presence of adverse consequences; or any combination of the above. Specifically, for 2 out of 36 sampled residents, a resident had medications that were not administered with no documentation of the reason for omission, and insulin was held when it should have been administered per the physician ordered parameters. Additionally, a resident was administered blood pressure medications without a documented blood pressure reading. Resident identifiers: 6 and 59.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility did not provide or obtain laboratory services to meet the needs of its residents. Specifically, a resident that had their complete blood count (CBC) and urinalysis (UA) cancelled did not have those labs redrawn. Resident identifier: 39.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility did not file in the resident's clinical record laboratory reports that were dated and contain the name and address of the testing laboratory. Specifically, for 2 out of 36 sampled residents, the facility did not file the resident's laboratory results in their medical records. Resident identifiers: 6, and 9.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined that the facility did not ensure that radiology and diagnostic services were obtained to meet the needs of its residents. Specifically, for 1 of 36 sampled residents, the facility did obtain an x-ray of the right knee when ordered by the physician. Resident identifier: 9.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, for 2 of 36 sampled residents, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, hand hygiene was not completed during a dressing change and the wound bed was cleaned with multiple cross swipes with the same gauze pad. Additionally, medication was placed back into a blister pack after a resident refused it. Resident identifiers: 68 and 59.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility did not ensure, for 1 of 17 sampled residents, that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. Specifically, the facility did not conduct wound care orders at prescribed by the physician. Resident identifier: 2. Findings Include: 1. Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] following surgical repair of a fractured ankle. On March 18, 2025, the surveyor completed a review of Resident 2's medical record and the following entries were observed: Resident 2 had a wound care order that started on October 24, 2024 and was discontinued on November 1, 2024. The order had instructions to complete wound care to the right ankle on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure residents were free of significant medication errors. Specifically, for 1 of 17 sampled residents, multiple doses of medications, including antibiotics and insulin, were not administered as ordered by the physician. Resident identifier: 9.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect resident personal health information (PHI) for 1 (Resident #55) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for privacy and 1 (Resident #46) of 4 sampled residents reviewed for dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to conduct a criminal background check for 1 (Certified Nursing Assistant [CNA] #3) of 6 nursing department staff prior to employment at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review, and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to provide supervision to prevent accidents related to elopement for 2 (Resident #59 and Resident #38) of 3 residents reviewed for elopement. Specifically, Resident #59 eloped from the facility on 02/24/2024 and was pushing their wheelchair when it was hit by a car. It was determined the facility's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to residents. The Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was related to State Operations Manual, Appendix PP, 483.25 (Quality of Care) at a scope and severity of J. The IJ began on 02/24/2024 at approximately 8:00 PM when Resident #59 eloped from the facility. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, facility document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure 4 (Certified Nursing Assistant [CNA] #3, CNA #13, Nursing Assistant [NA] #26, and Licensed Practical Nurse [LPN] #27) of 6 sampled employees were provided mandatory training related to dementia management and resident abuse prevention.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews, and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to adequately address a grievance filed by a family member of 1 (Resident #328) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for neglect. Specifically, Resident #328's family member filed a grievance related to finding the resident lying in bowel movement and urine on the morning of 10/16/2023, and the facility was unable to provide documentation of the steps taken to investigate the concern or information regarding whether the facility was able to confirm the concern.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from physical abuse by a resident (Resident #228) for 2 (Resident #48 and Resident #42) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record the review it was determined the facility did not ensure that pain management was provided to residents who require such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences. Specifically, for 1 out of 30 sampled residents, a resident that had a fall and complained of pain was not provided pain medication for 11 days. Resident identifier: 51.
Inspectors wrote3. Resident 17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included but not limited to dysphagia following cerebral infarction, encephalopathy, dysphagia, mood disorder due to known physiological condition, cognitive communication deficit, pain, type 2 diabetes mellitus, essential hypertension, and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia. Resident 17's medical record was reviewed on 1/13/22. Resident 17's drug regimen was not reviewed by the pharmacist for irregularities in September 2021 and October 2021. 4. Resident 25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included but not limited to metabolic encephalopathy, type 2 diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, restlessness and agitation, pain, and urinary tract infection. Resident 25's medical record was reviewed on 1/13/22. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility did not ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living, received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene. Specifically, for 1 out of 30 sampled residents, a resident did not receive the feeding assistance she needed at meal time. Resident identifier: 68.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility did not ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices. Specifically, for 1 out of 30 sampled residents, a resident who had a fall and complained of pain was not provided a computed tomography (CT) scan timely to rule out a fracture. Resident identifier: 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined the facility did not assist residents in obtaining routine and 24-hour emergency dental services. Specifically, for 1 out of 30 sampled residents, the facility did not follow-up with dental care when a resident continually complained of severe tooth pain, needing an x-ray, and dental extractions. Resident identifier: 60.
16 fire safety citations on file: 2 on June 4, 2026, 10 on March 29, 2024, 4 on January 13, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| June 4, 2026 | Fine | $17,055 |
| March 29, 2024 | Fine | $32,029 |
| March 29, 2024 | Payment Denial | 22 days from May 9, 2024 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Utah | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.63 | 4.09 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.31 | 1.25 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.25 | 3.58 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.08 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.23 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 69.9% | 50.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 63.3% | 40.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.95 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.78 on weekdays and 3.25 on weekends, 14% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 21.9% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.88 in April to June 2025 to 3.63 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.63 | 1.31 | 3.78 | 3.25 | 21.9% | 0 of 90 | 65 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.51 | 1.21 | 3.60 | 3.27 | 42.2% | 0 of 92 | 73 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.02 | 1.38 | 4.20 | 3.56 | 44.9% | 0 of 92 | 75 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.88 | 1.20 | 4.08 | 3.39 | 23.0% | 0 of 91 | 73 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Utah, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.91 | 1.11 | 4.10 | 3.44 | 2.8% | 0.2% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Utah, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $19.15 | $17.81 to $21.32 | 12,260 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $30.40 | $25.71 to $35.86 | 1,680 |
| Registered nurses | $40.67 | $38.49 to $50.54 | 27,420 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Utah | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.5 | 11.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.5 | 15.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.6 | 3.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 14.2 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.0 | 16.6 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.6 | 11.6 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.2 | 1.4 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Rocky Mountain Care - the Lodge's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (58.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
58.6% this home
Better than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Utah: 40 better, 0 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 153 eligible stays.
8.9% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Utah: 3 better, 0 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 173 eligible stays.
6.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Utah: 2 better, 0 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 103 eligible stays.
84.5% this home
Median of homes: Utah63.5% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 71 residents counted.
1.0% this home
Median of homes: Utah0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 99 residents counted.
3.5% this home
Median of homes: Utah1.3% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 99 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Utah100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 10 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: BEAVER VALLEY HOSPITAL. CMS links this home to Rocky Mountain Care, a group of 10 nursing homes averaging 3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beaver City Corporation | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 04/12/2013 |
| Bangerte, Nathan | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 11/01/2025 | |
| Bangerter, Edward | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 04/01/2025 | |
| Bangerter, Johnathan | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 11/01/2025 | |
| Barney, Janett | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2012 | |
| Beeman, Raymond | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/22/2022 | |
| Boardman, Laura | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/22/2022 | |
| Brown, Gary | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2011 | |
| Darby, Megan | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 11/01/2025 | |
| Gatherum, Jason | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 11/01/2025 | |
| Hale, Fredrick | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/22/2022 | |
| Hansen, Kent | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 11/01/2025 | |
| Mikesell, Bradley | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/22/2022 | |
| Neves, Courtney | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 11/01/2025 | |
| Oakden, Richard | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2010 | |
| Owens, Jon | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 11/01/2025 | |
| Robinson, Matt | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2019 | |
| Samuelson, Lance | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/22/2022 | |
| Schena, Tyler | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Smith, Val | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2019 | |
| Snowball, Kelly | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 11/01/2025 | |
| Widdison, Alan | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/22/2022 | |
| Wright, Craig | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2019 | |
| Langford, Scott | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2018 | |
| Moss, Tyler | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2018 | |
| Rocky Mountain Care Heber LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/12/2013 | |
| Novak, Kirsten | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Pittard, Jeffrey | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/05/2026 | |
| Bangerter, Edward | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 12/12/2025 | |
| Rocky Mountain Care Heber LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/11/2025 | |
| Rocky Mountain Care LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 11/04/2025 | |
| Novak, Kirsten | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Pittard, Jeffrey | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/05/2026 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Utah. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.